What do my classroom grades mean?

In order to understand the underlying meaning of classroom grades, it is necessary to uncover the individual elements or ingredients that have been included in the grading process. It is common, however, for disparate elements to be included in grades and for these elements to vary widely among teachers. Guskey and Bailey (2001) identify typical sources of grading evidence utilized by teachers.

This table indicates a wide variety of data sources that are combined by teachers in the grading process using idiosyncratic methods. Teachers may use any number or combination of these elements with differing priorities when determining student grades. The reason for the huge variation among teachers may be a lack of clarity regarding the underlying purpose of grading and reporting. If the purpose is unclear, decisions regarding what evidence to include in grades are extremely difficult to make. For this reason, it is recommended that decisions regarding purpose be made prior to decisions regarding sources of evidence. Bailey and McTighe identify the consequence of this variance.

“Grades often reflect a combination of achievement, progress, and other factors … this tendency to collapse several independent elements into a single grade may blur their meaning” (Bailey & McTighe, 1996).

Educational literature relating to the grading process consistently asserts that the appropriate factors to be considered in grade determination are those that indicate achievement referenced against learning goals or standards. This standards-referenced system indicates a clear purpose for grading: to communicate student achievement. O’Connor (2002) confirms that communicating student learning is the primary purpose of grading. He notes that identifying communication as the primary purpose of grades provides a clear direction for teachers concerning ingredients to be included in grades.

Marzano (2000) contends that ideal grading systems eliminate nonachievement variables including effort, behavior, and attendance from the overall academic grade. Ideally, teachers should provide students with feedback regarding these nonachievement factors but keep that feedback separate from academic achievement information. Student grades, therefore, are able to communicate an accurate and valid depiction of academic achievement status only if these factors are separated in the grading process. Guskey and Bailey (2001) suggest that the solution lies in a multifaceted reporting system that includes multiple grades and marks that result from this separation of grading ingredients.

References
Links
Resources

Back to Growing your Skills